Thread

1. fwlr · 1790297624 · focus · HN ↗

   Yes, the physics are worse, and yes, the economics are worse, but data centers in space have the crucial advantage that they are out of range of the molotov-throwing arm of Joe Public (recently unemployed).

   1. octoberfranklin · 1790300604 · focus · HN ↗

      I dunno, considering how various insurgent groups manage to make some reasonably impressive rocketry, I have to believe that in a few years with AI assistance (abliterate all the things) knocking a LEO satellite out of orbit won't be that much harder than sabotaging an electrical substation.

      We're talking about an exceptionally vulnerable target with a perfectly predictable path of travel here. And it's constantly emitting lots of RF making it easy to track. You just have to get near it and explode with shrapnel.

      Totally illegal, of course. But it will be within the reach of millions of people if they want to do it.

      I don't think "just move to space bro" is going to stop the pitchfork-mob.

      1. mitxela · 1790301130 · focus · HN ↗

         You still need hundreds of tonnes of rocket fuel no matter what, though.

         1. jmb99 · 1790304283 · focus · HN ↗

            Back of the napkin math says a bare minimum of ~2000kg of solid fuel in three stages to “get to” GEO using a 3-stage rocket, to deliver 1kg of “something.” You’d need a gravity assist highly elliptical orbit which is a touch harder to pull off (but probably not harder than getting 2000kg of ammonium perchlorate). Plus building the actual rocket, guidance computer, etc.

            Not trivial but not impossible. If you’ve got a few hundred million people with nothing better to do, I’m sure a few dozen/hundred could pull it off.

            1. byzantinegene · 1790304737 · focus · HN ↗

               especially if a good chunk of them are out of work mathematicians and physicists due to ai
            2. koolba · 1790305570 · focus · HN ↗

               I always thought it’d be some kind of railgun. A 1 kg slug would take out just about any satellite.

               1. gf000 · 1790323426 · focus · HN ↗

                  You ain't hitting anything over that distance without guidance, I'm fairly sure.
               2. mitxela · 1790335295 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you have a vacuum-filled gun barrel extending out of the atmosphere.
            3. octoberfranklin · 1790568291 · focus · HN ↗

               These satellites are way lower than GEO orbit. They're LEO.
         2. jazzyjackson · 1790307905 · focus · HN ↗

            You don’t have to intercept the satellites in orbit, they fall back to earth in a few years on their own. What SpaceX et al need to defend against is attacks while they are still on the ground or seconds after launch. Next round of investment will put the factories on the moon (only then will we see calls from the general public to Blow Up the Moon)
      2. [deleted] · 1790324027 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      3. red75prime · 1790325073 · focus · HN ↗

         Polluting LEO with debris is not the way to solve the problem of goods distribution. But, sure, there will be morons who consider it.

         1. impossiblefork · 1790339832 · focus · HN ↗

            That sounds way too categorical.

            It's not like people actually need satellites. We already have ground-based communication in the form of mobile phone networks etc., so I don't think the harm of making LEO unusable would be very great.

            1. red75prime · 1790349834 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't see why I shouldn't call people who choose wrong dangerous tools for the task morons.
            2. NetMageSCW · 1790370463 · focus · HN ↗

               I suggest talking to people in Ukraine or Africa or even rural US or Europe before you so blithely take away their access to healthcare, education and communication.
         2. airhangerf15 · 1790341606 · focus · HN ↗

            People who could do it successfully would hardy be considered morons. That would be a genius engineer.

            The general attitude in this thread against reasonable people not wanting unsustainable megaliths that produce horrible amounts of noise, and are driving up electricity prices, in their communities without any input from said community is astonishing.

            HN has really gone full AI derangement syndrome (it runs both directions).

            1. red75prime · 1790349477 · focus · HN ↗

               The majority will not do it successfully. Rocket science is notoriously hard. Hopefully, there will be no incentives to go to such lengths.

               Sending unguided rockets in the general direction of the enemy with 25% failure rate doesn't scale well to a 3-stage precision guided delivery vehicle.

      4. NetMageSCW · 1790370405 · focus · HN ↗

         I think the failures of most rocket startups to launch even with billions of dollars and thousands of real engineers shows how unlikely this is.

         And say you do build an orbital class rocket and manage to launch it without anyone noticing before you do - how many of e.g. Starlink’s 11,000 satellites will you be able to damage? What real impact will that have on Starlink?

         1. octoberfranklin · 1790568248 · focus · HN ↗

            They're trying to do something vastly more difficult: get a payload into orbit without damaging it.

            It's much easier to wreck shit than transport it safely.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.